Your move, brainlet

Your move, brainlet

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudometric_space
wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve sqrt(s((s-a)*(s-b)*(s-c))) where s=(a+b+c)/2, a=i, b=1, c=0
wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve sqrt(s((s-a)*(s-b)*(s-c))) where s=(a+b+c)/2, a=i, b=0, c=0
wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve sqrt(s((s-a)*(s-b)*(s-c))) where s=(a+b+c)/2, a=1, b=0, c=0
wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve sqrt(s((s-a)*(s-b)*(s-c))) where s=(a+b+c)/2, a=2i, b=0, c=0
wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve sqrt(s((s-a)*(s-b)*(s-c))) where s=(a+b+c)/2, a=2, b=0, c=0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Euclid BTFO

Blue line would be length square root 2

i cant think of something better you already won

The complex numbers can't be properly ordered which means they can't be used in the length of a segment.

Oh, yes. The beautiful theorem, [math] -1 + 1 = 2 [/math]. I believe it was proven by Euler on a rainy day.

he meant inverse.
and I believe that it was, in fact, Euler that proved 1-1+1-1...=1/2

>
you can't have a sidelength of a triangle be negative so the problem is invalid :^)

>muh applied mathematics
fuck off brainlet

>Euler that proved 1-1+1-1...=1/2
Euler is great but he genuinely pissed me off because he did not really prove those things. He symbolically made them happen. None of his calculations for that, or the other crazy shit he did, were rigorous. And if you have ever tried to write nonsense in math you know that sometimes that nonsense somehow reaches the correct answer, and sometimes you just get nonsense back. And that motherfucker got so lucky with this shit. Like 9 out of 10 times Euler wrote nonsense on a paper it turned out to be correct but he was walking a fine line. I remember I once read a little about the life of the guy who is the namesake of the Wronskian and it said that often what he published turned to be completely retarded because none of his calculations were rigorous and then people just confirmed he was batshit insane by trying to confirm his findings. He was expelled from the scientific world for publishing so much bullshit and died poor and rotting.

That guy and Euler are the same guy. Only Euler got really fucking lucky and the Wronskian guy did not. By the way, the reason he gets to be the name of the Wronskian was completely out of pity. He did not call the Wronskian, he did not even really study. He just casually used the same computation in the 2x2 case. And because that was his single thing that was not so shit, out of pity they named it after him. Poor guy.

But imagine if Euler's original proof for the sum of the reciprocals of the squares turned out to be wrong, and some other mathematician found that the sum actually equals something else. Then Euler would have been laughed at like a fucking retard and expelled from the scientific community like the Wronskian guy.

Euler is a lucky bastard.

the sides of a triangle can only be real positive numbers...